Six contenders to be Uber's new CEO(thehill.com)
thehill.com
Six contenders to be Uber's new CEO
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/339257-six-contenders-to-be-ubers-new-ceo
49 comments
and this may be even more problematic that it appears.
the ones from category one might have difficulty knowing what to do - unless we're talking about the lyft CEO they know success from something other than uber. that might not necessarily be good.
the ones from category two might have the same trouble as one, but add to that that they will have to compete/convince the board of probably every little move.
and if they don't do something fairly dramatic, fairly quickly, the good people at the mid and lower levels will start to flee for greener pastures.
the ones from category one might have difficulty knowing what to do - unless we're talking about the lyft CEO they know success from something other than uber. that might not necessarily be good.
the ones from category two might have the same trouble as one, but add to that that they will have to compete/convince the board of probably every little move.
and if they don't do something fairly dramatic, fairly quickly, the good people at the mid and lower levels will start to flee for greener pastures.
Who suggests these contenders?
They seem somewhat arbitrarily selected. I don't think it is credible to suggest, for instance, Sandberg. I don't think it is remotely plausible that she would be interested in the position.
It would be interesting if the reporting revealed a little more about the decision/justification.
They seem somewhat arbitrarily selected. I don't think it is credible to suggest, for instance, Sandberg. I don't think it is remotely plausible that she would be interested in the position.
It would be interesting if the reporting revealed a little more about the decision/justification.
there was a report last week, i dont remember who published it, that Arianna Huffington, who sits on Uber's board, was pushing for Sandberg. the report strongly suggested that she had no interested in leaving fb, as you mentioned, but i dont think her addition to the list was arbitrary.
Am I the only one sitting here thinking that maybe one of the qualifications for the position should be someone with some domain knowledge or experience? Yeah, that's probably hard to come by, but this doesn't sound like the author's even trying.
Despite all the public hand-wringing, Uber's problem isn't all the bad press. The problem is that it's an immature business that hasn't figured out how to make money yet. It doesn't matter how progressive the captain is or how happy the crew is or how much fanfare the trip gets if they still steer the ship into an iceberg.
Maybe the theory is that the head of a company that big doesn't really need to know the problem domain, just be a "good manager"? That's hard for me to believe; it certainly hasn't been true at any scale I have experience with.
Despite all the public hand-wringing, Uber's problem isn't all the bad press. The problem is that it's an immature business that hasn't figured out how to make money yet. It doesn't matter how progressive the captain is or how happy the crew is or how much fanfare the trip gets if they still steer the ship into an iceberg.
Maybe the theory is that the head of a company that big doesn't really need to know the problem domain, just be a "good manager"? That's hard for me to believe; it certainly hasn't been true at any scale I have experience with.
Right now, the required domain knowledge and experience at Uber is "quietly running a large company without controversy", not "knows a bunch about taxis and self-driving cars".
If they hire someone for image reasons, Uber is going to fail badly.
I'm pretty sure the board will do just that. I'm looking forward to Yahoo 2.0
Seems like Uber would be a big step _down_ for Sandberg.
Agreed. I'd be shocked if she did this. FB is a premiere tech company. She's second in command there. If she leaves, it would be to be first in command at another premiere company.
Uber is a startup that doesn't make money (actually loses quite a bit per ride), has just been rocked by a major scandal and doesn't posses any sort of tech or business process that is really unique. There is nothing that Uber does right now that another startup could just copy.
They lose money on each ride, and it's incredibly unclear how they will make money outside of trying to run taxis companies out of business by subsidizing fares with VC money and then jacking up fares when there is no more competition.
Uber is a startup that doesn't make money (actually loses quite a bit per ride), has just been rocked by a major scandal and doesn't posses any sort of tech or business process that is really unique. There is nothing that Uber does right now that another startup could just copy.
They lose money on each ride, and it's incredibly unclear how they will make money outside of trying to run taxis companies out of business by subsidizing fares with VC money and then jacking up fares when there is no more competition.
> it's incredibly unclear how they will make money outside of trying to run taxis companies out of business by subsidizing fares with VC money and then jacking up fares when there is no more competition
If you look at the numbers, all they need to do to reach profitability is increase fares by 7% without increasing the driver's cut.
I'm not suggesting they can just do that overnight without impacting their competitive position, but it's not "incredibly unclear" to me.
If you look at the numbers, all they need to do to reach profitability is increase fares by 7% without increasing the driver's cut.
I'm not suggesting they can just do that overnight without impacting their competitive position, but it's not "incredibly unclear" to me.
"Raising fares 7% without increasing the driver's cut" is a complete fantasy at actually should emphasize how unprofitable Uber is. In many other transportation industries, 7% is just about the total profit margin - if companies in these other industries could raise their revenue by "just" 7% they would double their income. They don't because they can't.
I disagree. The average $15 fare becoming $16 will just absorb a lot of consumer surplus that Uber is leaving on the table for competitive advantage. Cabs are still generally more expensive.
And you don't see Lyft as seeing an opportunity to sell for $15?
Actually I think the bigger threat would be lyft charging $16 and paying the drivers more. But outside of a few big American cities Uber dwarfs lyft so they would need to scale up before they could really threaten
A huge part of their appeal is unusually low fares. Raising their fares to a point of profitability is going to hurt what many customers like about them. But maybe their increased usability is still more than enough.
Raising fares 7% may get them to profitability, but does it get them to the point where a $70 billion valuation is justified?
Raising fares 7% may get them to profitability, but does it get them to the point where a $70 billion valuation is justified?
If I remember correctly they are also profitable in the US, but bleeding money in an attempt to corner other markets.
But they have $7.2B in cash, so they can "afford" it
FB was not a premier tech company when Sheryl joined. She played a big part in making it one. In fact, Hacker News as far as I remember was deeply critical of Facebook for a long time.
Not saying Uber will go down the same path as FB but I am pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Not saying Uber will go down the same path as FB but I am pointing out the flaw in your logic.
On the flip-side, if she takes the helm at Uber and brings it from the brink to a huge IPO, she'll achieve GOAT status.
She also has lots of experience dealing / managing a strong-willed founder with all the equity control.
I really don't know anything about her personality and style, but if she's the super ambitious Mayer-type, I think she'll go for it (assuming she sees a path forward when she gets to see the behind-the-scenes numbers).
She also has lots of experience dealing / managing a strong-willed founder with all the equity control.
I really don't know anything about her personality and style, but if she's the super ambitious Mayer-type, I think she'll go for it (assuming she sees a path forward when she gets to see the behind-the-scenes numbers).
Buy low, sell high.
I like how it's possible to go from contributing nothing to Yahoo (whose value was basically proportional to their share in Alibaba minus a small bit) to being a top contender for CEO at another company.
It seems hard to accept but at this level there are actually only few people even being considered by virtue of
a) name recognition in the industry
b) past experience managing large companies
Whether they failed or not is almost irrelevant.
Boards would vote for an arguable incapable Marissa Mayer over some super successful but unknown higher middle manager from Google because she is perceived as less of a risk.
a) name recognition in the industry
b) past experience managing large companies
Whether they failed or not is almost irrelevant.
Boards would vote for an arguable incapable Marissa Mayer over some super successful but unknown higher middle manager from Google because she is perceived as less of a risk.
Well, let's just say this CEO is going to play the role of John Sculley or Gil Amelio as a placeholder CEO until Travis's glorious return, then maybe it makes sense.
I mean, take a look at Leo Apotheker at HP - he was a complete fall-guy.
I mean, take a look at Leo Apotheker at HP - he was a complete fall-guy.
> I mean, take a look at Leo Apotheker at HP - he was a complete fall-guy.
What? Apotheker wasn't a fall guy - he made plenty of awful, horrible decisions all on his own, like the Autonomy purchase and his ruminations about divesting the PC business.
What? Apotheker wasn't a fall guy - he made plenty of awful, horrible decisions all on his own, like the Autonomy purchase and his ruminations about divesting the PC business.
Once you're in the club, you have to work really really hard to get kicked out of it.
[deleted]
Sheryl Sandberg or Marissa Mayer would be a huge win for Uber. I've worked with both of them, and know that they will bring extremely positive changes.
I worked under Marissa at Yahoo, and am happy to state (with my real name attached to this comment) that
1. She was a good person, and went out of the way at times to make employees feel good.
2. She was a terrible boss, who would pass edicts like "our cubicle walls will be cut to 50% of their tomorrow", and pass it off as "because natural light is better for you".
3. I believed as an employee that she cherry-picked data to support pet beliefs like hiring at selected schools, banning remote work and closing satellite offices.
4. She had a preference for ex-Googlers/ex-Google APMs
She would definitely bring positive change in terms of the scandals, but any competent HR department that has the company's long term interests in mind can do that, no?
1. She was a good person, and went out of the way at times to make employees feel good.
2. She was a terrible boss, who would pass edicts like "our cubicle walls will be cut to 50% of their tomorrow", and pass it off as "because natural light is better for you".
3. I believed as an employee that she cherry-picked data to support pet beliefs like hiring at selected schools, banning remote work and closing satellite offices.
4. She had a preference for ex-Googlers/ex-Google APMs
She would definitely bring positive change in terms of the scandals, but any competent HR department that has the company's long term interests in mind can do that, no?
I was going to post about her and "edict" is exactly one of the words I had in mind. I had to deal with one of those while at Google a decade ago. The PM made it clear that this particular UX decision came from up above and there couldn't be more experiments or workarounds, one of which had been prototyped by an engineer. While she's famous for the 41 shades of blue experiment, I saw the occasional arbitrary cherry-picking, too. The semi-randomness made it much more perplexing.
On the other hand, Instant Search was another edict of hers, which required months of massive planning and engineering, until it became usable and wouldn't bankrupt the company, but I'm glad she came up with it.
On the other hand, Instant Search was another edict of hers, which required months of massive planning and engineering, until it became usable and wouldn't bankrupt the company, but I'm glad she came up with it.
Ha actually to be fair, one of her "edicts" was "Please everyone switch to git, no other version control, and you have 1 month to do it.".
This was when the vast majority of the company was on git, and the holdouts were typically lazy or understaffed.
This was when the vast majority of the company was on git, and the holdouts were typically lazy or understaffed.
Re 2: If you are dealing with anything north of 5 people any permanent decision is likely to upset a percentage of your staff. Just because some dislike your decision that that does not make it less sound.
Re 4: You have your preference as well, so does Google, IBM, Yahoo and the small law firm where I work. Everyone does when it comes to hiring.
Re 4: You have your preference as well, so does Google, IBM, Yahoo and the small law firm where I work. Everyone does when it comes to hiring.
Re Re 2: The problem that I am seeing here is the lack of logic and thought put into the justification behind such a drastic change. Noise levels in a typical cubical environment are distracting enough to the average engineer. Same issue with the remote work policy. What it boils down to is a leader who creates "edicts" based on a personal preference or "cherry picked" facts rather than reason, logic, market research, A/B validation testing, etc.
Re 2: That was a real example, and a real reason. If you believe that it is sound logic, more power to you then.
Re 4: I am sorry, I meant to complete that sentence with "when it came to hiring execs, or buying companies".
She hired some (what I saw as) very poor execs who were once at Google, one of whom got a 60m severance package for underperformance.
Re 4: I am sorry, I meant to complete that sentence with "when it came to hiring execs, or buying companies".
She hired some (what I saw as) very poor execs who were once at Google, one of whom got a 60m severance package for underperformance.
Sandberg is an executive at a very successful company that makes a lot of money and is still on the way up. Mayer just flamed out as CEO, demonstrating that not only was she unable to turnaround a company, but that she also helped drive it further into the ground.
I highly doubt Sandberg would want this job, and I highly doubt that Mayer can turn around a company.
I highly doubt Sandberg would want this job, and I highly doubt that Mayer can turn around a company.
I would be stunned if Uber hired Marissa Mayer. Whatever virtues she may possess as a leader it's clear they don't include corporate turnarounds.
You're right in that aspect - her track record with Yahoo isn't great, but she could definitely help out with corporate culture as an advisory role.
If this is true. This is again a very much of PR attempt than a legitimate hunt for the right CEO. Marissa was brought into Yahoo when Yahoo hardly had anything to do. And now it's time for Uber to find a female CEO not to run the company but to say Uber is pro-feminist!
found the Lyft investor
Please state her achievements as a CEO at Yahoo.
Why not internally promote one?
1. Successful ones who have to be convinced that they should risk their reputation and take on the headaches at Uber.
2. Less successful ones, where you have to convince the current Uber decision makers to give them a shot.
I think the field is narrower than this article suggests.